New car safety bill

Asinine.

Completely asinine.

As much as I like backup cams, making them a requirement could increase the cost of a base car by thousands, given the screen and necessary hardware. Even cheaper solutions would cost close to a grand.
 
Certain vehicles can benefit, but others already have great visibility. Why should those buyers pay the price if it's not needed? Just turn and look, like we were all taught in driver's ed.
 
Any who was supervising that child? Why was he roaming around outside his house without parental supervision? If a baby crawls under a car, no camera will save them.

How about just a requirement to have people look behind them when they back up?

I totally agree with the first point. I think rear view cameras and auto-dimming rear view mirrors should be standard on *all* vehicles. Sadly, the fact that there is a good-sized profit margin to be had on them, especially the former since it is usually included with factory-installed navigation systems, probably will prevent this from happening unless a law like this is passed.

Moronic. Parking brake set? WTF? Reversing windows:
 
1. I thought this was on all cars?
2. It's sort of darwinian when some brat gets caught in a power window.
 
Auto-dimming mirrors are worthless, evil garbage. They server no point but to make drivers blind to the cars behind them.

If people don't use their mirrors, they're not going to use the screen for the camera. Technology doesn't solve the lack of sense.
 
Ditto for the power windows.
 
What's the parking brake thing have to do with a kid getting run over? I'm confused by that one.

i like the idea, but it those r gonna cost extra, ill pass. but if it keeps he price of da car da same, well by all means, go for it.
  
1. the window idea is ok, but usually wen there is somethin in da way, someone notices it
2. the camera, i dont think ppl will use it unless u gotta hook up a trailer.
3. parking brake? stupid.

Nice article

rear view cameras on all vehicles is stupid.
Read view cameras required on SUVs and trucks OK.
 
Rear view cameras are less effective than actually turning around and looking, in many cars.
 
Current Texas law already states you _must_ have your parking brake engaged when parked.
It just doesn't get enforced often, unless an accident happens.
 
In fact, if you read your car's manual, the manual will most likely tell you the proper way to park an automatic transmission car is:
1. foot brake and come to a stop
2. engage parking brake
3. put transmission in park.
 
Modern transmissions have become strong enough that the auto tranny park can handle the car's weight. But you're not suppose to do it that way. It's "incorrect" technique.

"Parking brake must be set before starting the vehicle."
 
Is this correct? I've also read that instead, either
 
A. The foot brake must be depressed to start the engine, or
B. All auto tranny cars must have brake/shift interlocks (these are not required, but after the Audi 5000 "sudden acceleration" ruckus, most vehicles already have them.)
 
So, which is correct?
 
As for auto-reversing power windows, these should be mandatory, IMO. Most low-end cars do not have this feature.
 
Cameras? Not so sure on this one, especially for cars as opposed to SUVs.
 
For the life of me though, I cannot understand why any parent would leave their kids in the car WITH THE KEYS IN THE IGNITION.

How bout a bill that requires people to look behind the big pane of glass called a REAR window when they back up. the cameras I don't think should be installed in cars those are more appropriate for trucks and SUVS the windows should be mandatory you can easily chop a carrot with the windows the way they are now if the y retract when something is caught on it that would help prevent so many uneccesary deaths

I'm not fond of retracting windows.
I think robberies will be much easier.
Hell, it's such a great incentive to rob motorists with that idea.
Robberies will be so easy to carry out.
Don't drive after dark!
Don't drive on a lonely street!
Don't ever stop in an unfamiliar neighborhood!
All robbers and potential robbers should strongly vote to pass this law. This will make the job 500% easier, cleaner, and free of evidence.
 
The no press-down-to-raise window switch law should be sufficient.
Nowadays it's mandatory that all window switches are pull-to-raise.

Uh, let's see here (based on what's been discussed and not just the three things in that article):
 
1. Ateixeira- backup camera systems don't need to add "thousands" to the cost of a car. That's just the way it seems now because the cameras are still treated as "high-end" options. Most people who add an aftermarket system (as in their trucks) are finding it to be a couple hundred at most, with some of the cheaper wireless setups being under $100. With the kind of volume this bill would add, the costs should seriously amortize out for the manufacturers, and be fairly reasonable. Also, for those that have said it should only be required on trucks and SUVs, better think again- minivans, vans also share the can't-see-a-*bleepin*-thing-under-3-feet-tall-straight-behind-me issue. Worse, many cars now have serious blind spots back there too, thanks to the new design tendency for large C-pillars and tall butts (aka trunks), to the point that 30"-or-less tall objects and children disappear (ever measure the height of a kid on a big wheel before?). While I agree there's a parental responsibility issue involved here too, there's nothing wrong with making it so that the driver doesn't have to end up feeling guilty because he / she didn't see what was behind them. I'm for this one.
 
2. blueguydotcom- you think autodimming mirrors serve no point but to make drivers blind to cars behind them. Huh? What're you smoking? I'm not sure how this one came up, unless I missed something in the article, but it sounds like you're one of those guys that gets impatient behind others and starts either flashing the headlights or worse, highbeaming the cars in front of you in an effort to harrass them into moving over or speeding up to *your* speed. Auto-dimming mirrors have never served to make anyone I know "blind to cars behind them". They merely keep them from being "blinded" by the cars behind them, and are a GREAT feature. So much so that I also like it when the side mirrors are also autodimming. Too many times the a-hole behind you in a hurry realizes you just flipped the dimmer knob on the rearview, so he / she pulls slightly left / right to try to get you with the side mirrors.. Not that I think auto-dimming mirrors need to be mandated by law or even standard. The regular dimming knob works pretty good for many of the situations I talked about above.
 
3. Auto-reversing power windows. I thought this was pretty much standard now, along with the new "pull to raise" switches. I'm actually surprised to read that the Pontiac Vibe cited for one death by this article didn't have it (especially since that's basically one of some folks vaunted 'Toyota' vehicles in light GM drag). I could see the amount of force required to cause some to reverse allowing injuring even with cars that have it right now though. I'm for this safety feature.
 
4. Parking-brake-interlocks. Er, I don't really see how this'll save anyone. The single situation cited in the article concerned a child putting a vehicle in gear when the owner had neglected to set the brake. What's to keep the child from releasing the parking brake after putting the vehicle in gear? Really, with nearly all cars now having a requirement that the brake pedal be depressed to start a car or to shift out of Park, this sounds like a specious argument if the car isn't left running unattended anyway. Can't really back this one.
 
So I guess I'm 2 for 3 (or 2 for 3 1/2 if you add in the thing about the auto-dimming review mirror).
 
BTW, none of these additional safety features are meant to absolve the driver of actually attempting to know what's behind the vehicle, or what's going on in it (covers the "I didn't see him behind me" thing much of the time, and the "she got her head stuck in the window" nearly all of the time). Nor is it meant to keep parents from being required to know where their children are and what they are doing. This might be my only real issue with laws

2. blueguydotcom- you think autodimming mirrors serve no point but to make drivers blind to cars behind them. Huh? What're you smoking? I'm not sure how this one came up, unless I missed something in the article, but it sounds like you're one of those guys that gets impatient behind others and starts either flashing the headlights or worse, highbeaming the cars in front of you in an effort to harrass them into moving over or speeding up to *your* speed.
 
Nice how you go for ad hominem instantly. The only time I hit my high-beams - when someone cuts me off. that's to let them know there was a car where they just put their car.
 
Auto-dimming mirrors have never served to make anyone I know "blind to cars behind them". They merely keep them from being "blinded" by the cars behind them, and are a GREAT feature.
 
Disagree. Every car I've driven with auto-dimmers is a nightmare. From BMW to MB to Audi to GM. Thankfully, some manufacturers allow you to turn the feature off. Cruddy makes - like GM - don't. In those cases I'm driving a rental at night, glance at my mirror and notice that all the cars behind me are barely there - it's as if I'm driving a car with a limo tint on the backwindow.
 
So much so that I also like it when the side mirrors are also autodimming. Too many times the a-hole behind you in a hurry realizes you just flipped the dimmer knob on the rearview, so he / she pulls slightly left / right to try to get you with the side mirrors..
 
Not a problem I've ever faced. Sorry. And dimming side mirrors are just as unsettling to me. I want to see the world behind me without impediment - or at least in the natural colors of the world!
 
I drive all over the world - getting shipped around for work. And really the one thing that will get me to return a car to a rental shop the fastest = auto dimming mirrors that I cannot disable. The second fastest - a GM car.

What a worhtless piece of legislation. But look who the sponcers are...
 
Jeff Foxworthy said it best, "If you can't say something nice about someone, then you must be talking about Hillary Clinton." And Sununu is no better. Those two are wasting oxygen that I could be breathing.

This is like putting out a house fire with an atomic bomb. Total over kill. I don't see them sending out the National Guard to do DUI checkpoints even though drunk drivers kill far more people every year. I truly wish Congress would actually get something IMPORTANT done for once. Sigh.

okay - the only one I like is the self reversing window and then I would hope that the sensor doesn't becomse so sensitive that you can't get the window back up....
 
But rear view camera's?? Uh - maybe instead of that we should design cars that have better rear visability? And have the parking brake set before starting the car? What good would that do? I mean in order start a vehicle nowadays and it has been this way for a long time, you have to have the clutche depressed, or be in park. That is usually suffiecient to keep a car from moving. And furthur more, you have to depress the brake pedal to even move from park, so to add a parking brake step is beyond redundant.

Once again I throw my hat into this blueguy i'll get to you in aminute but first things first I have to say that the rearview cameras should not be installed in cars. WHY? well its visibility in a car you have a rear window and a rearview mirror wheras in a truck or SUV you have big blind spots especially towards the rear. My mother has a 2003 chevy suburban I had to drive it a few times and the rear visibility is horrible because of the blind spots. personally i think that all SUVs and trucks and Vans should have back up cams that way, lack of visibility at the rear of these vechicles will not be as much of an issue and it will also help prevent uneccesary deaths of children every year because people do not see them when they back out.
 
And Yes I promised I'd get to you sooner or later Blue dot and your statements about atuto dimming mirros are just plain absurd. I agree with Jerrywimer (hope I spelled that right Jerry) on his satements and I have actually been in cars with auto dimmers and I think they are a GREAT feature I have no idea where your getting your facts from but maybe you should look at credible sources of information on this type of mirror before you post here it will make you sound less absurd

Auto dimming mirrors should remain optional. Different people have varying degrees of night vision. For instance, a person with blue eyes is more sensitive to light, and thus would benefit from dimmed mirrors. However, a person with brown eyes can't see as well because the pupils don't refract as much light. Dimmed mirrors would reduce visibility, not glare. Finally, my anthropology degree comes in handy. :-)
 
As far as pressure sensitive windows, thebigal hit the nail on the head. How sensitive are we talking about? If it suddenly starts raining, will my windows not be able to go up?
 
As far as the ebrake thing is concerned, it looks like everyone is pretty much in agreement.
 
Finally, rear view cameras are an additional cost that isn't necessary. Yes, it is tragic that the kid got hit. Life happens no matter how many safety features we implement. I am absolved that you can see so much better if you simply turn around and look where you're going. There are indeed vehicles with poor rearward visibility. Each of us knows that when we purchase a vehicle, just like we know that we have a significantly higher risk of rollover if we purchase an SUV. Common sense is a far more useful tool than any gadget a manufacturer can force you to buy.